Talk:Greystones

Marina, Overpopulation and other complaints

Could residents who have objections to changes in the town please not try and write with such ridiculous POV in this article. Here's some text I just had to edit out:

...the council and developers are fools if they think the decent people of Greystones are in favour of it...:

...which threatens to turn the area into some sort of cheaper version of Benidorm, with an excessive number of high-rise apartments, etc...:

Its really annoying to see Wikipedia in such a dreadful state, and I'd request for people to maintain objectivity. Cheers

--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.14.67 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the person (or persons) who keeps inserting this sentence:

Both Greystones and Blackrock are seen as desirable places to live, but wits insist that the former is but a pale shadow of the latter.

would like to create an account at Uncyclopedia. That would be a better place for this "joke". And please don't assert, as has been done by email, that I don't get it. It's irrelevant whether any contributer or reader gets the joke; the point is that this isn't the place for jokes, particularly when the statement, taken literally, is so clearly in violation of the NPOV policy.

If someone cares enough to find a way to insert this piece back into the article without being so apparently POV then it might well add character to the article. But please don't put it back unless you can find such a way. —Rory ☺ 18:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

These sentences I deleted are either tendentious or outright false. The number of submissions from outside Greystones is currently unknown. The Department of Marine says the marina will do nothing to stop coastal erosion. I'm a resident and I'd prefer the harbor reverted to natural beach than any development of this kind happened. (You may or may not agree with me, but my opinion disproves the statement that "all residents" want some kind of development). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.53.223 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry about that, it was a bit of a stupid revert on my part... I saw the anon IP and just made assumptions. :) Jhonan ^talk 13:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, as long as its equal in its point of view —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.70.214.43 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I see the guidelines for edits and discussion ask that contribs be signed. Hmmm... So, 86.40.14.67, and those like you, why have you not got a user name instead of an IP address? And why don't you sign your contribs?

Bwmiller 12:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

POV on Father Ted

I have repeatedly edited this section to remove somebody's point of view of Father Ted as 'The Greatest Comedy of all time' and the person keeps replacing it. It's not appropriate and shouldn't be included! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.153.50 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Obviously no sense of humour mate, why do you care so much.. Father Ted is the 'Greatest Comedy of all time'!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.70.214.43 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Famous People

Why have Joe Sweeney, Gordon, Mrs. Mooney, etc. been removed from the "Famous Residents" section? They are certainly very well-known within the community. Does the fact that they are unknown outside of Greystones disqualify them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.162.201 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

here here, bring back our famous residents — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.185.46 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How are they famous? Well known yes, but famous NO. Josie from Supervalue, come on will ya. 83.141.80.130 (Talk)

Before you add people you consider famous to Wikipedia, I suggest you first read this Wikipedia guide page on notability to see if your people pass the basic test of notability. Unfortunately, these Greystones additions are not famous people though they may be local characters and known locally. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and these people will likely never be regarded as famous enough for any encyclopaedia. If you wish to contribute, Wikipedia will be happy to see constructive work so that others can benefit from greater encyclopaedic knowledge about Greystones or other articles that you have verifiable information about. ww2censor 03:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have removed Juan Cullen, as I could not find any reference as to why they were Internationaly popular, googling for "Juan Cullen" +greystones returned zero hits. Regards, MartinRe 23:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation checking

As the current debate seems to be centered over one paragraph, I've copied it here as there does still seem to be problems with uncited claims:

• "Currently the most topical issue ..." - looks okay enough, possibly better not to say "most topical", why not "A major topical issue"?
• "some 6000+ submissions, with over half coming from outside the Greystones Delgany area" - are there sources for a) the 6000 submission figure, and b) that half are outside the area? If not, better to remove unverified claims.
• "Those in favour look forward ..." - citation? "those in favour" sound worringly like weasal words
• "The coastal erosion will also be much reduced by the plan" - citation? According to whom/what study?
• "All inhabitants are in favour.." citation? "All inhabitants" needs a WP:RS to avoid being another weasal word

Regards, MartinRe 11:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice job Martin on revision of the topical issue and the external links. Let's hope the vandals stay off it, otherwise we shall have to protect it for registered users only as the same people keep adding the same non-notables over and over again. ww2censor 15:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, nice to be noticed :) I don't think protection will be necessary, as relatively speaking, this is getting very few edits, well within the limit of being reverted by other editors. It would be nice to have a source for the 6,000 submissions, though. I felt it was reasonable to leave in for the moment as from the searches I did several blogs came up with similar figures, but as blogs aren't reliable sources I didn't list them as a source, but it did give me enough confidence that a source could be found, so left it in, but uncited for the moment. Regards, MartinRe 19:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

6,000 does seem like the number and this Irish Independent citation [1] (you might need to register {free} to view it) seems like a reasonable one as does this one [2]. Hope that helps clarify the number of submissions. ww2censor 01:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Perfect. (You can see the figure without registering by going to http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?issue_id=13862 which shows the headlines, from which I got the publication date and verified the figure. I had found the second link myself, but as it described itself as a blog, I was wary of putting it in as the only source. Regards, MartinRe 10:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice one! - Thanks for finally sorting out that piece. Jhonan ^talk 10:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Regular vandalism

As I mentioned here, and on the Irish Wikipedian's page, I think this page really needs some protection from anonymous users. Some of you have been reverting repeated vandalism here as i have too. I would do it but am not sure how, so maybe you guys know better. Don't you think it is about time we make this vandalism more difficult? ww2censor 01:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think semi-protection is necessary at this stage. The recent edits have been easily reverted by several editors, and are infrequent enough that the benefits are outweighed by the downside of stopping all new/anon editors contributing. Plus, this has been ongoing over several weeks, and as protection is only applied for a limited time, it would only hide the problem for a day or two. If you want to apply for page protection, you can request it at WP:RPP but I would be surprised if it was done, for the above reasons. The alternatives to protection (other editors reverting) seem to be working well enough, and the additions are only done once a day, so not a big issue, in the scheme of things. Regards, MartinRe 08:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding anti-development (of ANY kind) POV being inserted into articles about Greystones; the same happened to Blackrock, which started to read like some absolutist preservationist tract. Ditto Dún Laoghaire, and numerous roads articles. It would appear some people regard promoting a POV as the primary function of Wiki! (Sarah777 00:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

The text about population growth doesn't make a lot of sense and is inconsistent...

As it stands, it reads :- "Greystones has experienced a huge increase in its population since the 1970s, with the construction of several large housing estates. As of the national census of 2002, Greystones had a population of 7,315, making it the third largest town in County Wicklow. There is currently large-scale construction at Charlesland, including new housing and retail developments just south of the town with over 1,000 dwelling units. Preliminary 2006 Census figures show a small decrease of 209 in Greystones' population leaving it at 7,106.

Indeed, the population of Greystones has expanded steadily over the last 25 years. Some residents are concerned that over-population may result, and the town and its surrounding landscapes could be damaged."

So has the population of Greystones "expanded steadily over the last 25 years", (a timeframe starting in 1982, which I'm pretty sure is factually wrong), or has it experienced "a huge increase since the 1970's" ? (The 2 phrases are not synonymous). Turning to wikipedia to resolve this puzzle, I find the population has in fact declined between 2002 and 2006.BUT there were 1000 dwellling units built in Charlesland (so they must all be empty, or something).

Snarkiness aside, I'd go ahead and change it to something better, but I'm not entirely sure of the explanation of the census decline. The Charlesland dwellings clearly exist, and are largely not empty. I suspect that Charlesland isn't regarded by the CSO as being in Greystones, but don't have time to research it now. Anyone around who's better informed and could confirm this ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alanperkins (talk • contribs) 05:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Blindingly true

I was glad to find this note here, but surprised that the guardians of probity such as Rory and WW2censor or whatever have allowed the ludicrously inaccurate entry on population to stand. The CSO figures refer only to a strictly-defined area of territory which is not congruent with what either most people or the county council define as 'Greystones', and certainly does not include Charlesland or several other large-scale housing developments nearby. The result is that the figure of just over 7000 bears no relationship to the true population of Greystones, which is closer to 17,000 now and expected to rise to over 22,000 by 2010.

Unfortunately, I know that if I edit the entry to reflect the actuality these self-important guardians of the Greystones entry, whose over-conservative approach you can taste from their entries above, will delete it and reinsert these ludicrous figures. Just as well the true population is reflected in voting figures -- perhaps Rory and his cohort would care to check the figures from ALL Greystones' voting districts from the election on May 24 and find out just how wrong their choice of figures is.

For example, figures from the 2002 census for persons over one year old & in their usual residence on the night of the census are: Greystones 11,423 ([3] For 2006, a similar figure is Greystones 14,569 [4]

I suggest the all-powerful ones make a phone call to the CSO to find out where they have gone wrong and are so dazzlingly misleading wikipedis users with information which is plain wrong! Advice? If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. Bwmiller 15:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Population figures are plain wrong = untrue = inaccurate = misleading

Concerns expressed about the figures given for Greystones' population have not been addressed by the page bosses. Why not? The population figures are plain wrong! (They've been selected from the wrong CSO table, thus betraying the ignorance of the authors, who do not appear to have signed their work...)

Take a look at the previous topic on population for some clues, lads & lassies...

Bwmiller 15:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As another minder of the Greystones article I might add that you have a point, This very debate was is replicated somewhere (can't remember where) where one editor insisted in reducing "grossly inflated population figures" for Dublin, Cork, etcetera by reverting to the population of the core City Council only; thus Dublin ended up with a population of 500,000 or so. From memory, the debate ended with Dublin getting it's 1.2 million restored on the basis that a local authority administrative area doesn't necessarily define the population of a town/city when the commonly accepted boundaries are very different. Charlesland is certainly in Greystones in my view; indeed a case could be made that Delgany and Kilcoole are now merely parts of Greystones - but of course by the same reasoning Bray is part of Dublin's population. Thank God for Bray head and the Little Sugar Loaf! (Sarah777 22:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

I think I see the difficulty. I live in Greystones, and I don't regard Charlesland as being in Greystones (Are you a resident, Sarah777 ?). But that's just my personal opinion, of course. The fact remains, the article is inconsistent .. either ignore Charlesland entirely (or mention it as a new town being built south of Greystones), or include Charlesland in the population figures. Or,possibly, (briefly) summarise the whole ambiguity ? Alanperkins 22:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly am a resident, I parked the trailer permanently some years back! It does surprise me to hear that Charlesland is considered by anyone not to be part of Greystones though....never heard that one before. It is, after all, a mere few hundred meters from Greystones Main Street. (Sarah777 22:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

Mmmm... Point is, folks, that certain powers that be do regard the population of Greystones as including Charlesland and certain other places -- Killincarrig, Delgany, Blacklion -- Planning concerns dominate here, as well as political, and as a result what is normal usage should rule when establishing population. The planners say the population of Greystones is certainly over 16,000 by now, but Wikipedia is telling the entire world that they are wrong by 10,000 people or so... Get a grip!

Interesting, too, that these immortals, the page pedants, are apparently uninterested in these discussions... do they read them? They certainly don't respond... It makes you wonder about the accuracy of other Wiki pages, doesn't it? Maybe I'll go back to Britannica...

Bwmiller 18:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Good edit. Don't go; sensible folk are rare enough here! (Sarah777 20:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

OK, Sarah, I'll stay a while longer. Quis custodiet? and all that... But it really amazes me that the Page Pedants, so insistent on OBSERVING THE RULES and removing POV, can get the FACTS completely wrong (and then stay away from the discussion). each day, we learn anew. Bwmiller 12:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be entirely happy with the current text on this issue, but can't formulate a rule whereby I can change it. The fact remains that there's another part of the CSO document where they present the c. 7000 figure for the population of Greystones. Sarah777, I don't think the analogy of Dublin applies .. no one would argue that UCD isn't in Dublin, yet it's outside the corporation area. There's a broad consensus that "Dublin" refers to an area other than it's strict local authority area. I don't believe such a consensus exists for Greystones :- that it includes Delgany, for example. Ask a Delgany homeowner if they live in Greystones (house prices are higher in Delgany, they'll say no). Ask a UCD student if they're studying in Dublin, 99.99% will say yes. So the issue is more complex than the current text suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.141.97.62 (talk • contribs) 02:33, June 24, 2007

Hi there completely anonymous unsigned person! True on the issue of what a Delgany resident would say; but using that as a guideline, what Charlesland resident wouldn't simply say "Greystones" if asked? And Delgany, Kilcoole, Killlincarrig - as they merge into a single conurbation; what is the collective name? I looked up the OSi Greystones map and it covers 4 pages; two are called "Greystones" and cover Greystones as far south as the Rugby Club and west to Kindlestown; the next two are called "Delgany" and include Charlesland! (as well as Greystones village; Kindlestwon, Killincarrig). Seems to suggest that whatever the name, the place is all the one! (Sarah777 11:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

Neutrality of marina section

I really think this section has to be toned down a lot. A couple of points - in a town of 14,569 people, 6,200 complaints does not constitute a majority, and it is not encyclopedic to say that "its seems to". But further to this point, I'd like to mention this link [5], which quotes an Irish Times article saying that "many of the 5,500 submissions had come from outside Greystones".

Secondly, this sentence: The Board requested the developers to make certain changes. However, it appears that the developer and county council ignored a number of these recommendations. I think it requires either a "citation needed" stamp, or to simply be deleted. Schcambo 11:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Problems with your suggestions:

Of the total population, many are under 18. 6,200 objections most likely represents a majority of the adult population, entitled to vote, etc etc. So adding the word 'adult' would be enough to increase acccuracy;

The Irish Times article you refer to did not state that many submissions had come from outside Greystones — it quoted a Wicklow County Council spokesmouth as alleging this, a claim later disproved, though not relevant to begin with, as anyone may have an interest in the outcome of a development and is entitled to object irrespective of place of residence under Irish planning law. Here's the actual quote from wicklow.com:

The Irish Times reported a Wicklow County Council spokesperson saying that many of the 5,500 submissions had come from outside Greystones...

'Citation needed': Yes, in the same sense as the medieval scholastics required 'citations', condemning Europa to centuries of ignorance. There is no official textual source for this, but if you had attended the second oral hearing you would have come to the same conclusion. As you did not, perhaps you'd like to check with Bord Pleanala what requests it made of the developers, WCC & Sispar, at the first hearing and then compare their actual responses to those requests, here [6]. --Bwmiller 01:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)